Thinking Big--the need for a new, more powerful, more energy efficient internet

By Tom Foremski - November 21, 2005

By Tom Foremski, Silicon Valley Watcher

The best entrepeneurs know that it is important to think big, because big ideas excite and motivate people.

Applying this concept to the internet, I wondered what type of internet business could be started that had the potential to be the largest, and what kind of business would it be?

Would it be a larger Yahoo? Or maybe a mega online retailer combining an Amazon and Ebay?

In fact it is none of the above or any other combination of internet companies that you, or Wall Street can imagine.

The largest potential internet business would have to be the internet itself.

But how could a startup create a competitor to the internet? The capital costs of a new internet would be staggering, let alone the marketing, and all the rest.

Well, let's not get distracted by big investment numbers just yet. Let's consider what would be the most important characteristic of a successful new internet: It would have to be compellingly better and cheaper than the old internet, by several magnitudes preferably. And if we were designing a new internet today, it would look nothing like the patchwork of systems in use today.

The design of a new internet would mandate using the highest cost performance IT architecture available, which means industry standard hardware, open-source software components, and a fair amount of Big Iron--large computer systems to handle large computational problems more efficiently than clustered smaller systems.

And the design of a new internet would require special attention to electric power consumption because energy costs are now a large factor in cost/performance calculations. And those costs will increase as we move further from peak oil production.

Individuals, companies, countries, are all seeking to lessen exposure to energy prices and supplies. Because the consequences of being over-exposed raise costs in a world where competitive leadership is all about being the lowest cost/highest quality producer/provider. Not to mention the disruption to trade and society from wars over energy resources.

We know the internet is very important to our future, and to those in other countries too. It is a shared global platform that will gain, not lessen in importance. And therefore it should be powerful, incredibly reliable, and ubiquitous, and very low in energy consumption.

And such an internet could be built with today's components and technologies and be a boon to all users. It would not require the invention of any exotic technologies.

A new internet would vault digital divides and network the entire world population because the edges of the network could be accessed by inexpensive digital devices: digital phones, simple PCs and notebooks, using processing cycles within the internet.

Building a new internet could become a symbol for a global civilization based on collaboration and understanding. And that is what Google is doing, imho.



Share this article

 Subscribe in a reader

By Tom Foremski - November 21, 2005 | Permalink | Comment | Category: Future Watch
| SVW Toolbar | SVW Newsletter | SVW Mobile

Comments (10)

Ahsan:

Can you explain what prompted you to write this? Sounds interesting/ provocative but I can't see why Google would get in the business of providing a public good like the Internet? I'm sure Cisco would love the idea but who would come to play on that platform if all the benefit (or the lion's share) would accrue to our friends at Bellevue South? A new Google run-and-owned shadownet would allow them to better monitor users and place ads more efficiently. But is the problem with the current Internet the infrastructure or the (lack of) compelling content/ retail outlets?

Posted: November 22, 2005 1:25 PM

Willliam Dyson:

I think that you maybe right about the creation of a new internet. But I think that it is about more than the connections, the electricity, or the equipment. I think that there will be a very big paradigm shift in the way we do things on this new "internet". I also dont think one company should be the only option for this. I think that there will be at lest two. And if it were coming to a point where there was only one, I would certainly put my life into creating an open and "public" option that would be devoid any need for profit and therefore be a platform for innovation for all.

We have already seen a world where one company becomes an over dominant force. Innovation and competition are smothered. This kind of movement and thinking enforces its arrogance onto the market. It says that the dominant company has all the answers. That in a sense the history of this sector or market has come to a close. There is nothing else to be done. This is arrogant and cannot be allowed to happen; if innovation is lost the disappearance if hope is not far behind.

Posted: November 23, 2005 5:49 AM

Tom Foremski - Silicon Valley Watcher [TypeKey Profile Page]:

The problem with the current internet is that it would not be able to compete with a proprietary internet that is built out of today's components. Therefore the old internet would not be used. And a new internet can grow up within the old, steadiily acquiring more traffic and uses, yes many novel uses too, because it would be so much better and cheaper.

A private company such as Google, is building a communications infrastructure that is, essentiually, a private/proprietary internet. If it is far cheaper and has a higher performance, why wouldn't people use it? But as Dan Farber pointed out recently, no one owns the internet. But clearly, it could be owned--and that has to be the largest business strategy if you are an internet company...

Posted: November 23, 2005 11:50 AM

Dimitar Vesselinov:

Tom, do you want to see the future? I do. Everyone does. I'll bet on virtual worlds, simulations and predictive markets.

Posted: November 24, 2005 8:46 AM

Penguin:

I don't get it... how would a proprietary Internet be cheaper? And what would be the incentive for different companies to create services for a Google-net? Who will buy and maintain the hardware required to run this Google-net? Yes, energy consumption is a concern, but that should be up to traditional SPs/ISPs/cablecos to put pressure on vendors to create networking more energy efficient gear, in order to reduce opex.

Posted: November 24, 2005 3:05 PM

Tom Foremski - Silicon Valley Watcher [TypeKey Profile Page]:

A proprietary internet would be cheaper because it would be more powerful in every way than the current one which is a patchwork of newer and older systems. A proprietary internet can arise as part and parcel of the current internet. It becomes a choice which one you would use, that choice always comes down to price/performance/service (lets set strategic reasons for choices aside).

I already use the GOOGnet for a lot of my internet applications and services. I also use a lot of YHOOnet internet applications and services.

Energy consumption is a factor because it becomes a competitive factor. For example, if GOOGnet is more energy efficient than YHOOnet then that is a cost/competitive advantage--all other things being equal. Over the short-term it's not a big deal, but we know energy costs are a long-term deal therefore build that into your business plans now, it makes sense.

And yes, customers are putting pressure on server and network gear makers to reduce power costs--not just for energy consumption but for heat buildup in ultra-dense configurations.

Posted: November 24, 2005 4:35 PM

Anonymous:

What are you smoking? Do you have any idea how the internet works? The whole reason it's so wonderfully successful is because it is open and non-proprietary.

Do you know how vast the scale of equipment and organisation is that keeps the internet running? Even Google has no hope of replicating it, and what you say about it being able to be done more efficiently is frankly rubbish. Anyone with an appreciation of internet architecture will see just how elegant and efficient it actually is. I'll admit it's not perfect, but anyone who thinks a single organisation could do better needs their head examined.

Time and again, attempts to make proprietary internet-like networks have failed (just look at the resounding failure of mobile content, for one very obvious example).

The internet is far more powerful than Google will ever be.

Posted: November 25, 2005 9:11 AM

Tom Foremski - Silicon Valley Watcher [TypeKey Profile Page]:

Dear annonymous, why do you not have the balls to use your own name? I use mine and take whatever you or others throw at me--give me the same respect and use yours.
The point is that you would not have to replicate the entire internet. The entire internet could still be there, but you could offer a better way to do what is being done today. With today's technologies.

Posted: November 25, 2005 12:23 PM

Byrum's Neighbor:

The Internet allows business to happen. I don't think a mega-business is the next big thing. Instead, it will a loud roar from a lot of small, successful businesses. Think about how many new companies have tapped into this free, non-proprietary system. It truly levels the playing field. I saw several interesting articles on starting online businesses recently on www.startupnation.com. You might want to check the site out.

Posted: November 28, 2005 8:58 AM

Matt Grimshaw:

While I understand the call for a new internet, I think the odds of building a new version are similar to the odds of Bush Jnr being accepted into Mensa. However I recently read a BBC story that raised an eyebrow on this subject, focused on a new internet browser called Flock that could well change the way we use the internet, and that's exciting in itself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4382626.stm

Posted: November 28, 2005 1:17 PM

Post a comment